politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trouble over bridged waters. Boris Johnson’s plan to link Scot
Comments
-
It's his last resort and only hope of saving the union but ultimately it won't make difference. It will just delay independence for Ireland and Scotland by a few years.0
-
@rcs1000
If you think Bloomberg never wins at a brokered convention and won’t get a plurality of delegates from primaries unless his national polling is transformed, then what do you think his real chances are? 8/1, 10/1, 12/1 or 25/1?
I can’t see him being north of about 15/1 myself. Yet.0 -
You don’t need a feasibility study.Luckyguy1983 said:
Totally agree. And it's right to study the feasibility - although I am puzzled why we're discussing it now, since the study has not reported and nor has it just been commissioned. Every new idea needs space to germinate and survive being a seedling - it is too easy to stamp on them at the earliest stage. I think Boris understands this and does not mind a bunch of non starters as long as one or two are amazing.Philip_Thompson said:Leaders of all sorts float ideas. The last three Presidents of the United States (at least the last 3, maybe more) have announced that NASA will be sending manned missions to Mars. Based on earlier announcements that should be happening soon, but its always something decades off that gets forgotten about until it gets announced as a great new idea by the next President.
Part of the reason is that talk is cheap I agree. But the second reason I'd give is more nobel than Mr Meeks cynical suggestion - by floating different ideas people talk about them yes but then you can see the ideas that do take off, and when problems get discussed some people set out to start solving those problems.
If an idea is floated and the problems get solved relatively easily then that idea -even if it was originally just a kite - can end up a reality.
We’ve just done it.
It isn’t feasible.0 -
Correct.Alistair said:
You could throw in every scotland to (Northern and Republic of) ireland flight being replaced by a rail service as well and I would assume you would still not get closeCasino_Royale said:
Hence, hopefully, the power of my point.rcs1000 said:
Those numbers are staggeringly generous.Casino_Royale said:Any business case for a new bridge needs to start with a traffic study.
At present there are two routes plied from Belfast and Larne to Stranraer (ish) respectively, averaging 12 sailings a day.
Stena operates the Stena Superfast VII, which has a max capacity of 660 cars or 110 lorries or a mixture of both.
Let’s go 1/4 lorries and 3/4 cars. If we assume they all run to capacity all the time then you’re looking at about 500 cars and 30 lorries.
That gets you to 6,000 cars and 400 lorries (round up) a day. Let’s say every car pays £30 for the toll and lorries £100. You could maybe pull in £220k gross income a day.
You wouldn’t get that every day, and it’d be seasonal, but let’s assume you get it on 300 days (closures/bad weather etc) and you pull in £66m a year gross. You’ve then got a good few million a year in maintenance and much more in staff but let’s say an opex profit of £30-40m a year (remember: I’m being very generous with maxed out traffic receipts here) and over a 100 year lifespan you might expect £3-4bn in returns (again, note: I’ve done no NPV here, which will really depress it, and maintenance costs will increase with age).
The likely capex cost of the bridge (sans extra infrastructure) is probably £15-20bn. So it’s business case is some like 0.14-0.25 at best.
In other words, it’s fucking shite. Even if you assumed traffic would more than double you’d get nowhere near breaking even.
It will never be built.0 -
Whether I’m a fan or not is irrelevant. In fact, from a purely engineering perspective, I find it rather an interesting challenge.viewcode said:
So not a fan then?Casino_Royale said:Any business case for a new bridge needs to start with a traffic study.
At present there are two routes plied from Belfast and Larne to Stranraer (ish) respectively, averaging 12 sailings a day.
Stena operates the Stena Superfast VII, which has a max capacity of 660 cars or 110 lorries or a mixture of both.
Let’s go 1/4 lorries and 3/4 cars. If we assume they all run to capacity all the time then you’re looking at about 500 cars and 30 lorries.
That gets you to 6,000 cars and 400 lorries (round up) a day. Let’s say every car pays £30 for the toll and lorries £100. You could maybe pull in £220k gross income a day.
You wouldn’t get that every day, and it’d be seasonal, but let’s assume you get it on 300 days (closures/bad weather etc) and you pull in £66m a year gross. You’ve then got a good few million a year in maintenance and much more in staff but let’s say an opex profit of £30-40m a year (remember: I’m being very generous with maxed out traffic receipts here) and over a 100 year lifespan you might expect £3-4bn in returns (again, note: I’ve done no NPV here, which will really depress it, and maintenance costs will increase with age).
The likely capex cost of the bridge (sans extra infrastructure) is probably £15-20bn. So it’s business case is some like 0.14-0.25 at best.
In other words, it’s fucking shite. Even if you assumed traffic would more than double you’d get nowhere near breaking even.
It will never be built.
(ducks)
I’m just pointing out there is next to no business case for it.0 -
How on earth did you resist putting the plural name of a bird in brackets underneath that post?Casino_Royale said:
Whether I’m a fan or not is irrelevant. In fact, from a purely engineering perspective, I find it rather an interesting challenge.viewcode said:
So not a fan then?Casino_Royale said:Any business case for a new bridge needs to start with a traffic study.
At present there are two routes plied from Belfast and Larne to Stranraer (ish) respectively, averaging 12 sailings a day.
Stena operates the Stena Superfast VII, which has a max capacity of 660 cars or 110 lorries or a mixture of both.
Let’s go 1/4 lorries and 3/4 cars. If we assume they all run to capacity all the time then you’re looking at about 500 cars and 30 lorries.
That gets you to 6,000 cars and 400 lorries (round up) a day. Let’s say every car pays £30 for the toll and lorries £100. You could maybe pull in £220k gross income a day.
You wouldn’t get that every day, and it’d be seasonal, but let’s assume you get it on 300 days (closures/bad weather etc) and you pull in £66m a year gross. You’ve then got a good few million a year in maintenance and much more in staff but let’s say an opex profit of £30-40m a year (remember: I’m being very generous with maxed out traffic receipts here) and over a 100 year lifespan you might expect £3-4bn in returns (again, note: I’ve done no NPV here, which will really depress it, and maintenance costs will increase with age).
The likely capex cost of the bridge (sans extra infrastructure) is probably £15-20bn. So it’s business case is some like 0.14-0.25 at best.
In other words, it’s fucking shite. Even if you assumed traffic would more than double you’d get nowhere near breaking even.
It will never be built.
(ducks)
I’m just pointing out there is next to no business case for it.0 -
Last year's GDP growth figure of 1.4% is entirely due to increases in public spending and to a lesser extent households spending money they don't have. The productive part of the economy actually went backwards. Johnson will want to keep the public spending taps on for as long as possible.
Jeremy Corbyn has a right to feel aggrieved. Just think what GDP growth would be if he were in power.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/12271816557748551680 -
Fair enough. But, and I suspect like so much of the coming years, sober calculation will be overturned by raw emotion...Casino_Royale said:
Whether I’m a fan or not is irrelevant. In fact, from a purely engineering perspective, I find it rather an interesting challenge.viewcode said:
So not a fan then?Casino_Royale said:Any business case for a new bridge needs to start with a traffic study.
At present there are two routes plied from Belfast and Larne to Stranraer (ish) respectively, averaging 12 sailings a day.
Stena operates the Stena Superfast VII, which has a max capacity of 660 cars or 110 lorries or a mixture of both.
Let’s go 1/4 lorries and 3/4 cars. If we assume they all run to capacity all the time then you’re looking at about 500 cars and 30 lorries.
That gets you to 6,000 cars and 400 lorries (round up) a day. Let’s say every car pays £30 for the toll and lorries £100. You could maybe pull in £220k gross income a day.
You wouldn’t get that every day, and it’d be seasonal, but let’s assume you get it on 300 days (closures/bad weather etc) and you pull in £66m a year gross. You’ve then got a good few million a year in maintenance and much more in staff but let’s say an opex profit of £30-40m a year (remember: I’m being very generous with maxed out traffic receipts here) and over a 100 year lifespan you might expect £3-4bn in returns (again, note: I’ve done no NPV here, which will really depress it, and maintenance costs will increase with age).
The likely capex cost of the bridge (sans extra infrastructure) is probably £15-20bn. So it’s business case is some like 0.14-0.25 at best.
In other words, it’s fucking shite. Even if you assumed traffic would more than double you’d get nowhere near breaking even.
It will never be built.
(ducks)
I’m just pointing out there is next to no business case for it.
0 -
Yes, one aspect of modern politics (which is kind of weird) is that providing facts are treated as providing an opinion.viewcode said:
Fair enough. But, and I suspect like so much of the coming years, sober calculation will be overturned by raw emotion...Casino_Royale said:
Whether I’m a fan or not is irrelevant. In fact, from a purely engineering perspective, I find it rather an interesting challenge.viewcode said:
So not a fan then?Casino_Royale said:Any business case for a new bridge needs to start with a traffic study.
At present there are two routes plied from Belfast and Larne to Stranraer (ish) respectively, averaging 12 sailings a day.
Stena operates the Stena Superfast VII, which has a max capacity of 660 cars or 110 lorries or a mixture of both.
Let’s go 1/4 lorries and 3/4 cars. If we assume they all run to capacity all the time then you’re looking at about 500 cars and 30 lorries.
That gets you to 6,000 cars and 400 lorries (round up) a day. Let’s say every car pays £30 for the toll and lorries £100. You could maybe pull in £220k gross income a day.
You wouldn’t get that every day, and it’d be seasonal, but let’s assume you get it on 300 days (closures/bad weather etc) and you pull in £66m a year gross. You’ve then got a good few million a year in maintenance and much more in staff but let’s say an opex profit of £30-40m a year (remember: I’m being very generous with maxed out traffic receipts here) and over a 100 year lifespan you might expect £3-4bn in returns (again, note: I’ve done no NPV here, which will really depress it, and maintenance costs will increase with age).
The likely capex cost of the bridge (sans extra infrastructure) is probably £15-20bn. So it’s business case is some like 0.14-0.25 at best.
In other words, it’s fucking shite. Even if you assumed traffic would more than double you’d get nowhere near breaking even.
It will never be built.
(ducks)
I’m just pointing out there is next to no business case for it.
I’ve provided some facts and assumptions that show it to have no business case. My personal opinion is that it is quite an interesting prospective project.
They are two different things.3 -
When I typed "(ducks)" I was not applying a term of endearment popular in 30's cockernee films, nor was I referring to a bird of the family Anatidae. I was instead referring to a rapid downward movement of the head and shoulders to evade damage, used in online banter to denote a joke that is simultaneously funny and infuriating.isam said:
How on earth did you resist putting the plural name of a bird in brackets underneath that post?Casino_Royale said:
Whether I’m a fan or not is irrelevant. In fact, from a purely engineering perspective, I find it rather an interesting challenge.viewcode said:
So not a fan then?Casino_Royale said:Any business case for a new bridge needs to start with a traffic study.
At present there are two routes plied from Belfast and Larne to Stranraer (ish) respectively, averaging 12 sailings a day.
Stena operates the Stena Superfast VII, which has a max capacity of 660 cars or 110 lorries or a mixture of both.
Let’s go 1/4 lorries and 3/4 cars. If we assume they all run to capacity all the time then you’re looking at about 500 cars and 30 lorries.
That gets you to 6,000 cars and 400 lorries (round up) a day. Let’s say every car pays £30 for the toll and lorries £100. You could maybe pull in £220k gross income a day.
You wouldn’t get that every day, and it’d be seasonal, but let’s assume you get it on 300 days (closures/bad weather etc) and you pull in £66m a year gross. You’ve then got a good few million a year in maintenance and much more in staff but let’s say an opex profit of £30-40m a year (remember: I’m being very generous with maxed out traffic receipts here) and over a 100 year lifespan you might expect £3-4bn in returns (again, note: I’ve done no NPV here, which will really depress it, and maintenance costs will increase with age).
The likely capex cost of the bridge (sans extra infrastructure) is probably £15-20bn. So it’s business case is some like 0.14-0.25 at best.
In other words, it’s fucking shite. Even if you assumed traffic would more than double you’d get nowhere near breaking even.
It will never be built.
(ducks)
I’m just pointing out there is next to no business case for it.
Obvs.
0 -
Does it have to break even? I am sure CalMac have never made a profit (without subsidy) and what does a similar calculation for HS2 look like?Casino_Royale said:
Yes, one aspect of modern politics (which is kind of weird) is that providing facts are treated as providing an opinion.viewcode said:
Fair enough. But, and I suspect like so much of the coming years, sober calculation will be overturned by raw emotion...Casino_Royale said:
Whether I’m a fan or not is irrelevant. In fact, from a purely engineering perspective, I find it rather an interesting challenge.viewcode said:
So not a fan then?Casino_Royale said:Any business case for a new bridge needs to start with a traffic study.
At present there are two routes plied from Belfast and Larne to Stranraer (ish) respectively, averaging 12 sailings a day.
Stena operates the Stena Superfast VII, which has a max capacity of 660 cars or 110 lorries or a mixture of both.
Let’s go 1/4 lorries and 3/4 cars. If we assume they all run to capacity all the time then you’re looking at about 500 cars and 30 lorries.
That gets you to 6,000 cars and 400 lorries (round up) a day. Let’s say every car pays £30 for the toll and lorries £100. You could maybe pull in £220k gross income a day.
You wouldn’t get that every day, and it’d be seasonal, but let’s assume you get it on 300 days (closures/bad weather etc) and you pull in £66m a year gross. You’ve then got a good few million a year in maintenance and much more in staff but let’s say an opex profit of £30-40m a year (remember: I’m being very generous with maxed out traffic receipts here) and over a 100 year lifespan you might expect £3-4bn in returns (again, note: I’ve done no NPV here, which will really depress it, and maintenance costs will increase with age).
The likely capex cost of the bridge (sans extra infrastructure) is probably £15-20bn. So it’s business case is some like 0.14-0.25 at best.
In other words, it’s fucking shite. Even if you assumed traffic would more than double you’d get nowhere near breaking even.
It will never be built.
(ducks)
I’m just pointing out there is next to no business case for it.
I’ve provided some facts and assumptions that show it to have no business case. My personal opinion is that it is quite an interesting prospective project.
They are two different things.0 -
John Bercow on The One Show tonight.0
-
Johnson’s vanity projects are fine up to a point. The problem comes when they start drawing funds away from other things. One of the criticisms of the Garden bridge was not just its ultimate abandonment at a massive cost to TfL (the effects of which, in combination with Khan’s “fare freezes”, are still being felt) is the other projects which were scrapped in the process - I believe an oft mentioned one is an upgrading of the Blackwall (?) tunnel possibly?
This is the problem with Johnson - he was always likely to see spending money as a good thing for its own sake, without any real thought for financial discipline or what that meant for the long term. You don’t have to be a fan of austerity to recognise that.1 -
When do we get the first Nevada pole that's been done post NH?0
-
I saw his book in W H Smith for £20 today. I expect in 3 months you'll be able to pick it up for a fraction of that!tlg86 said:John Bercow on The One Show tonight.
0 -
0
-
Well London made the decisions and you know what they think of Scotland, do it on the cheap and dump it on us would have been their mantra.Alphabet_Soup said:Why did we dump all the munitions in our own coastal waters instead of mid-Atlantic?
0 -
https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1227654257400303618
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.1 -
There is that.Mexicanpete said:
He does have one distinct positive. He is not Trump!MaxPB said:Lol Bloomberg. He's a republican. He hates black people just like the rest of them.
Bloomberg was "A lifelong Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his party registration in 2001 to run for mayor as a Republican. He defeated opponent Mark J. Green in a close election held just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. He won a second term in 2005 and left the Republican Party two years later."0 -
The Scottish tories are really as thick as they make themselves out to be.Theuniondivvie said:More bridge news.
https://twitter.com/C9J/status/1227666876819480576?s=200 -
Obscene really. Maybe they should be made to give half to charity (Sitting MPs who earn such sums)rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1227654257400303618
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.0 -
Why, in the name of all that is holy, would any sentient being pay to listen to Mrs May?rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1227654257400303618
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
0 -
By the time that few extra years have elapsed we might be back in the single market under PM Starmer anyway, hence removing the border in the Irish Sea and Sturgeon's main reason for pushing indyref2TheGreenMachine said:It's his last resort and only hope of saving the union but ultimately it won't make difference. It will just delay independence for Ireland and Scotland by a few years.
0 -
Pound land special by December.GarethoftheVale2 said:
I saw his book in W H Smith for £20 today. I expect in 3 months you'll be able to pick it up for a fraction of that!tlg86 said:John Bercow on The One Show tonight.
0 -
Neither do California polls, due to their complex system of mail and provisional ballots that distorts the electorate and takes months to count.BigRich said:
So far the United States has been lucky that California was a swing state only in 1976, if they mattered it would take about a year to find who won a Presidential Election.0 -
May has thus earnt almost 5 times her annual salary as PM since she left No 10rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1227654257400303618
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.0 -
I just had a look and the longest bridge in the world is indeed in Russia, but it looks like the water depth is 9m max.Luckyguy1983 said:Those who opposed HS2 ought, on reflection to have had a plan for what do with its left over £12bn rump that would otherwise have highlighted what a godawful mess the whole thing was. To try and make good. If there was such a plan I have not been aware. In the absence of a route backwards, I suppose the only route was forwards.
I still think the Northern Ireland bridge is a great idea. I don't know quite what it is about this country and bridges - it seems like other countries (Russia was mentioned) just have to think about a bridge and one appears.
When Boris' bridge was discussed a few days ago they specifically mentioned the Denmark/Sweden bridge - I believe the maximum depth for that one is 40m.
Isn't the Irish Sea 350m deep where Boris wants to build? I'm not a bridge builder, but I suspect even Putin might admit that was a little too ambitious.0 -
Predixtion: in approx 10 years Republicans in America will be having fainting fits that William Barr is not being confirmed to the Supreme Court.0
-
I can understand that for some organisations there would be some appeal in bragging about getting former PMs or even just MPs to speak at something or other, and even to pay for that to happen. What I do struggle to understand, even without how much money they have, is why they pay as much as they do when those people might be notable but still be poor speakers.Cyclefree said:
Why, in the name of all that is holy, would any sentient being pay to listen to Mrs May?rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1227654257400303618
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.0 -
Once again you show your total ignorance of Scotland and its Politics.HYUFD said:
By the time that few extra years have elapsed we might be back in the single market under PM Starmer anyway, hence removing the border in the Irish Sea and Sturgeon's main reason for pushing indyref2TheGreenMachine said:It's his last resort and only hope of saving the union but ultimately it won't make difference. It will just delay independence for Ireland and Scotland by a few years.
0 -
I think Mr Meek's assertion is accurate. Mr Johnson is perfectly entitled to offer us whatever he likes so long as the end date is set for a time in the relatively distant future. An aim for free interstellar flight by 2050? An aim for teleportation by 2060? It adds a cheery note of optimism to our otherwise dull existence.Luckyguy1983 said:
We are talking about something that has been a core policy of NI's leading political party for (I think) over a decade. If what you say is true, let it come out in the feasibility study, and it can be put to bed for a while. Or not.Mexicanpete said:
If we were to categorise Boris' vanity civil engineering projects in terms of construction complexity, affordability and requirement (or lack of need) the new bridge project is head and shoulders above anything else he has dreamed up in terms of sheer lunacy.Luckyguy1983 said:Those who opposed HS2 ought, on reflection to have had a plan for what do with its left over £12bn rump that would otherwise have highlighted what a godawful mess the whole thing was. To try and make good. If there was such a plan I have not been aware. In the absence of a route backwards, I suppose the only route was forwards.
I still think the Northern Ireland bridge is a great idea. I don't know quite what it is about this country and bridges - it seems like other countries (Russia was mentioned) just have to think about a bridge and one appears.0 -
People are starving in the world, children are homeless in Syria, and someone thinks the best use of £96,000 is to pay Theresa May to speak. Aliens would be right to consider us mad, if they were watching.kle4 said:
I can understand that for some organisations there would be some appeal in bragging about getting former PMs or even just MPs to speak at something or other, and even to pay for that to happen. What I do struggle to understand, even without how much money they have, is why they pay as much as they do when those people might be notable but still be poor speakers.Cyclefree said:
Why, in the name of all that is holy, would any sentient being pay to listen to Mrs May?rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1227654257400303618
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.1 -
I see a good positive motive for her resignation as PM.HYUFD said:
May has thus earnt almost 5 times her annual salary as PM since she left No 10rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1227654257400303618
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
A type of golden parachute.1 -
Who the hell wants to listen to Theresa May?0
-
Barr is too old for a future supreme court appointment in 10 years.Alistair said:Predixtion: in approx 10 years Republicans in America will be having fainting fits that William Barr is not being confirmed to the Supreme Court.
They like their new judges young so they can stay for almost forever.0 -
Cyclefree said:
Why, in the name of all that is holy, would any sentient being pay to listen to Mrs May?rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1227654257400303618
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
All true of course, but there is still the warmish glow of remembering that someone has fleeced PWC of £96K, which in itself is a sort of public service, for providing a speech most of us would happily pay not to hear. Perhaps the heating system of Sonning church needs a bit of cash to go carbon neutral and TM has decided to chip in?
1 -
Maybe someone should have a word in Boris' shell-like.speedy2 said:
I see a good positive motive for her resignation as PM.HYUFD said:
May has thus earnt almost 5 times her annual salary as PM since she left No 10rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1227654257400303618
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
A type of golden parachute.
When Boris learns he could be earning £10,000,000 a year for a couple of speeches and fete openings it might be tempting enough for him to resign. He seems motivated by money, so I live in hope.1 -
Still a term of endearment in parts of unwoke England.viewcode said:
When I typed "(ducks)" I was not applying a term of endearment popular in 30's cockernee films, nor was I referring to a bird of the family Anatidae. I was instead referring to a rapid downward movement of the head and shoulders to evade damage, used in online banter to denote a joke that is simultaneously funny and infuriating.isam said:
How on earth did you resist putting the plural name of a bird in brackets underneath that post?Casino_Royale said:
Whether I’m a fan or not is irrelevant. In fact, from a purely engineering perspective, I find it rather an interesting challenge.viewcode said:
So not a fan then?Casino_Royale said:Any business case for a new bridge needs to start with a traffic study.
At present there are two routes plied from Belfast and Larne to Stranraer (ish) respectively, averaging 12 sailings a day.
Stena operates the Stena Superfast VII, which has a max capacity of 660 cars or 110 lorries or a mixture of both.
Let’s go 1/4 lorries and 3/4 cars. If we assume they all run to capacity all the time then you’re looking at about 500 cars and 30 lorries.
That gets you to 6,000 cars and 400 lorries (round up) a day. Let’s say every car pays £30 for the toll and lorries £100. You could maybe pull in £220k gross income a day.
You wouldn’t get that every day, and it’d be seasonal, but let’s assume you get it on 300 days (closures/bad weather etc) and you pull in £66m a year gross. You’ve then got a good few million a year in maintenance and much more in staff but let’s say an opex profit of £30-40m a year (remember: I’m being very generous with maxed out traffic receipts here) and over a 100 year lifespan you might expect £3-4bn in returns (again, note: I’ve done no NPV here, which will really depress it, and maintenance costs will increase with age).
The likely capex cost of the bridge (sans extra infrastructure) is probably £15-20bn. So it’s business case is some like 0.14-0.25 at best.
In other words, it’s fucking shite. Even if you assumed traffic would more than double you’d get nowhere near breaking even.
It will never be built.
(ducks)
I’m just pointing out there is next to no business case for it.
Obvs.
0 -
He's earned plenty from speeches already, I suspect, plus his columns and so on. That's why now he seeks easy gratification and acclaim through splurging public cash.Mexicanpete said:
Maybe someone should have a word in Boris' shell-like.speedy2 said:
I see a good positive motive for her resignation as PM.HYUFD said:
May has thus earnt almost 5 times her annual salary as PM since she left No 10rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1227654257400303618
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
A type of golden parachute.
When Boris learns he could be earning £10,000,000 a year for a couple of speeches and fete openings it might be tempting enough for him to resign. He seems motivated by money, so I live in hope.0 -
OK.IshmaelZ said:Does it have to break even? I am sure CalMac have never made a profit (without subsidy) and what does a similar calculation for HS2 look like?
The Bridge would almost certainly run an operating profit. That is, it's revenues would almost certainly exceed the costs of keeping it open. (Although that might change over time as maintenance costs rise with age.)
But it would never make an economic return. It would never pay back its capital costs, or come even come close. The idea that operating profits could even cover interest payments in incredible.
With HS2, calculating the economic benefits is hard. There is additional capacity on the main line at peak hours. How much that will be utilised, and at what price, is key. Furthermore, part of the benefits of HS2 come in terms of increased capacity for other services as express trains are moved off old lines.
Nevertheless, a back of the envelope calculation for revenues is not that hard. HS2 probably increases revenues by around £1.5bn per year directly, and then you can add a figure for the benefits of more capacity on other lines. We then have to calculate an operating margin - because trains have more expenses than bridges. (Although the civil engineering around the trainline - i.e. the trench that is dug out - will likely last longer than the bridge.) But let's assume that you end up with operating profits of £1bn/year. On a £60bn cost, you don't quite make the interest payments, but over the course of 100 years, you at least have profits that exceed the cost of construction.1 -
Starting a war in the Middle East, but against Israel this time, ought to keep both camps happy.GarethoftheVale2 said:Interesting profile of Starmer here:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/keir-starmer-profile
It feels to me that if he wins he is going to go for a big tent, keeping on some of the Corbynites like RLB but also bringing back the likes of Benn and Cooper. The key question then is whether everyone can get along or whether Momentum start causing trouble.
The danger of trying to keep everyone happy is that Lab may end up with a mish mash of policies with a few bones being thrown to the Corbynites and a few to the Blairites.0 -
No, it's really not.BigRich said:
They're doing it the way it's always been done. They're abandoning the app, and will have precinct captains write down the results and then phone and email them into the central office.
I have little doubt that it will run as smoothly as it always does.0 -
There is going to be a point, probably in the not to distant future when Bill Barr and Mitch McConnell look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves how the hell did we allow this insanity to get so far out of hand.Alistair said:Predixtion: in approx 10 years Republicans in America will be having fainting fits that William Barr is not being confirmed to the Supreme Court.
0 -
As someone who has occasionally hired politicians (and others) to give speeches at work one of the reasons you do it, regardless of the speaker, is that big name brings in people in your industry/clients/suppliers you don't normally get to see regularly, if at all.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
They act as a glorious networking event.2 -
If Boris does 10 years as PM he could double those earnings or moreMexicanpete said:
Maybe someone should have a word in Boris' shell-like.speedy2 said:
I see a good positive motive for her resignation as PM.HYUFD said:
May has thus earnt almost 5 times her annual salary as PM since she left No 10rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1227654257400303618
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
A type of golden parachute.
When Boris learns he could be earning £10,000,000 a year for a couple of speeches and fete openings it might be tempting enough for him to resign. He seems motivated by money, so I live in hope.0 -
Sure, but for near 100k?TheScreamingEagles said:As someone who has occasionally hired politicians (and others) to give speeches at work one of the reasons you do it, regardless of the speaker, is that big name brings in people in your industry/clients/suppliers you don't normally get to see regularly, if at all.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
They act as a glorious networking event.0 -
Don't you mean spaffing public cash?kle4 said:
He's earned plenty from speeches already, I suspect, plus his columns and so on. That's why now he seeks easy gratification and acclaim through splurging public cash.Mexicanpete said:
Maybe someone should have a word in Boris' shell-like.speedy2 said:
I see a good positive motive for her resignation as PM.HYUFD said:
May has thus earnt almost 5 times her annual salary as PM since she left No 10rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1227654257400303618
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
A type of golden parachute.
When Boris learns he could be earning £10,000,000 a year for a couple of speeches and fete openings it might be tempting enough for him to resign. He seems motivated by money, so I live in hope.0 -
Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.0 -
It's a bargain if it brings a client/clients that is/are a big fee earner, something that is annually 10 times that speaking fee.kle4 said:
Sure, but for near 100k?TheScreamingEagles said:As someone who has occasionally hired politicians (and others) to give speeches at work one of the reasons you do it, regardless of the speaker, is that big name brings in people in your industry/clients/suppliers you don't normally get to see regularly, if at all.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
They act as a glorious networking event.0 -
Splooging perhaps.Mexicanpete said:
Don't you mean spaffing public cash?kle4 said:
He's earned plenty from speeches already, I suspect, plus his columns and so on. That's why now he seeks easy gratification and acclaim through splurging public cash.Mexicanpete said:
Maybe someone should have a word in Boris' shell-like.speedy2 said:
I see a good positive motive for her resignation as PM.HYUFD said:
May has thus earnt almost 5 times her annual salary as PM since she left No 10rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1227654257400303618
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
A type of golden parachute.
When Boris learns he could be earning £10,000,000 a year for a couple of speeches and fete openings it might be tempting enough for him to resign. He seems motivated by money, so I live in hope.0 -
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/nicola-sturgeon-snp-will-press-for-single-market-membership-1-4766514malcolmg said:
Once again you show your total ignorance of Scotland and its Politics.HYUFD said:
By the time that few extra years have elapsed we might be back in the single market under PM Starmer anyway, hence removing the border in the Irish Sea and Sturgeon's main reason for pushing indyref2TheGreenMachine said:It's his last resort and only hope of saving the union but ultimately it won't make difference. It will just delay independence for Ireland and Scotland by a few years.
0 -
It's hard for those of us in less august surroundings to image, no doubt.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's a bargain if it brings a client/clients that is/are a big fee earner, something that is annually 10 times that speaking fee.kle4 said:
Sure, but for near 100k?TheScreamingEagles said:As someone who has occasionally hired politicians (and others) to give speeches at work one of the reasons you do it, regardless of the speaker, is that big name brings in people in your industry/clients/suppliers you don't normally get to see regularly, if at all.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
They act as a glorious networking event.0 -
I was basing my analysis on Blair. £60m in ten years? And adding a bit more for inflation and Boris' gorgeousness.HYUFD said:
If Boris does 10 years as PM he could double those earnings or moreMexicanpete said:
Maybe someone should have a word in Boris' shell-like.speedy2 said:
I see a good positive motive for her resignation as PM.HYUFD said:
May has thus earnt almost 5 times her annual salary as PM since she left No 10rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1227654257400303618
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
A type of golden parachute.
When Boris learns he could be earning £10,000,000 a year for a couple of speeches and fete openings it might be tempting enough for him to resign. He seems motivated by money, so I live in hope.1 -
Corporate expenditure is down to corporations, but I think serving MPs should have to donate a large portion of any such earners to charity.TheScreamingEagles said:As someone who has occasionally hired politicians (and others) to give speeches at work one of the reasons you do it, regardless of the speaker, is that big name brings in people in your industry/clients/suppliers you don't normally get to see regularly, if at all.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
They act as a glorious networking event.0 -
Forget about traffic levels and payback- the bridge isn't buildable. But we've had enough of experts, and 17.4m people voted for this bridge and Boris is the man to Get It Done0
-
-
Fake news, I haven't costed this project.Malmesbury said:Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.0 -
How is life treating you post Brexit Mr Farage?eadric said:So Britain had the 3rd fastest growing economy in the G7 in 2019
LOL@Remainers0 -
I hear Mrs May is great speaker when it comes to cricket, she's a huge fan, which explains the knighthoods for Messers Boycott, Strauss, and Cook.kle4 said:
It's hard for those of us in less august surroundings to image, no doubt.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's a bargain if it brings a client/clients that is/are a big fee earner, something that is annually 10 times that speaking fee.kle4 said:
Sure, but for near 100k?TheScreamingEagles said:As someone who has occasionally hired politicians (and others) to give speeches at work one of the reasons you do it, regardless of the speaker, is that big name brings in people in your industry/clients/suppliers you don't normally get to see regularly, if at all.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
They act as a glorious networking event.
But she wouldn't be in the my top ten speakers I'd hire.1 -
1) You left out the critical part of any analysis for a new transport link - not just the current traffic level, but any analysis of how traffic levels might change with extra capacity.TheScreamingEagles said:
Fake news, I haven't costed this project.Malmesbury said:Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.
Imagine an analysis of HS2 that said - we take the existing traffic level and assume that HS2 will carry the same.
2) Non direct benefits not considered. When looking at transport links, the knock on effects must be considered.0 -
How about getting Dominic Cummings to stand on a floating platform and running trains back and forth across his colossal swollen head? Should reach right across the Irish Sea...RochdalePioneers said:Forget about traffic levels and payback- the bridge isn't buildable. But we've had enough of experts, and 17.4m people voted for this bridge and Boris is the man to Get It Done
0 -
It's an imaginary project anyway. Fit only for driving unicorn and cart from Scotland to NI.TheScreamingEagles said:
Fake news, I haven't costed this project.Malmesbury said:Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.0 -
Again I've not written anything on this subject apart from noting the Scots wouldn't be keen on Orange Order having easier access to Scotland.Malmesbury said:
1) You left out the critical part of any analysis for a new transport link - not just the current traffic level, but any analysis of how traffic levels might change with extra capacity.TheScreamingEagles said:
Fake news, I haven't costed this project.Malmesbury said:Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.
Imagine an analysis of HS2 that said - we take the existing traffic level and assume that HS2 will carry the same.
2) Non direct benefits not considered. When looking at transport links, the knock on effects must be considered.0 -
Boris floats the idea (no pun intended). It gets knocked back for cost and difficulty reasons. He says "Aha. We looked at it but it isn't prudent to proceed. We will not waste public money...". The end result is that he looks open to new ideas but sensible at the same time. That would be a win for a lot of people, even him.ydoethur said:
How about getting Dominic Cummings to stand on a floating platform and running trains back and forth across his colossal swollen head? Should reach right across the Irish Sea...RochdalePioneers said:Forget about traffic levels and payback- the bridge isn't buildable. But we've had enough of experts, and 17.4m people voted for this bridge and Boris is the man to Get It Done
0 -
I voted leave, did a Mea Culpa when I realised they were serious about leaving the EEA and became a #remainernow. Brexit isn't going to turn out ok if the Tories are serious about imposing border checks on everything in January. Business who imports and exports- like most business - needs to know what 2021 looks like. And "deal with it" doesn't cut the mustard when Govey says it'll be 2025 before we get back to border process as simple as we have now.eadric said:
It's certainly not the apocalypse. What can possibly explain the below-Brexit performances of France, Germany and Italy???EPG said:
3rd out of 7 is, well, it's above average!eadric said:So Britain had the 3rd fastest growing economy in the G7 in 2019
LOL@Remainers
Brexit???
Also, what ARE Remainers going to do if Brexit turns out OK, indeed pretty good, considering (which I expect). The levels of cognitive dissonance might be actively fatal. We may look upon Jolyon Maugham, in a tiny kimono, hammering a Boxing Day fox to death, as a time of relative Remoaner sanity.0 -
Sorry - meant Casino_Royale. Doh!TheScreamingEagles said:
Again I've not written anything on this subject apart from noting the Scots wouldn't be keen on Orange Order having easier access to Scotland.Malmesbury said:
1) You left out the critical part of any analysis for a new transport link - not just the current traffic level, but any analysis of how traffic levels might change with extra capacity.TheScreamingEagles said:
Fake news, I haven't costed this project.Malmesbury said:Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.
Imagine an analysis of HS2 that said - we take the existing traffic level and assume that HS2 will carry the same.
2) Non direct benefits not considered. When looking at transport links, the knock on effects must be considered.0 -
The fieldwork dates for that poll start before even IowaHYUFD said:0 -
Blair gets his because he spent a decade as PM including the Iraq War. Had he just spent a few months he wouldn't be raking that in.Mexicanpete said:
I was basing my analysis on Blair. £60m in ten years? And adding a bit more for inflation and Boris' gorgeousness.HYUFD said:
If Boris does 10 years as PM he could double those earnings or moreMexicanpete said:
Maybe someone should have a word in Boris' shell-like.speedy2 said:
I see a good positive motive for her resignation as PM.HYUFD said:
May has thus earnt almost 5 times her annual salary as PM since she left No 10rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1227654257400303618
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
A type of golden parachute.
When Boris learns he could be earning £10,000,000 a year for a couple of speeches and fete openings it might be tempting enough for him to resign. He seems motivated by money, so I live in hope.1 -
Regarding the lack of a bridge to Sicily, don't the lads who run the ferries hold a fair bit of clout in such matters?0
-
No you haven't. You've neatly and elegantly calculated that the road tolls won't repay the investment. I bow to no-one in my respect for your experience and abilities but that isn't a full feasibility study.Casino_Royale said:
You don’t need a feasibility study.Luckyguy1983 said:
Totally agree. And it's right to study the feasibility - although I am puzzled why we're discussing it now, since the study has not reported and nor has it just been commissioned. Every new idea needs space to germinate and survive being a seedling - it is too easy to stamp on them at the earliest stage. I think Boris understands this and does not mind a bunch of non starters as long as one or two are amazing.Philip_Thompson said:Leaders of all sorts float ideas. The last three Presidents of the United States (at least the last 3, maybe more) have announced that NASA will be sending manned missions to Mars. Based on earlier announcements that should be happening soon, but its always something decades off that gets forgotten about until it gets announced as a great new idea by the next President.
Part of the reason is that talk is cheap I agree. But the second reason I'd give is more nobel than Mr Meeks cynical suggestion - by floating different ideas people talk about them yes but then you can see the ideas that do take off, and when problems get discussed some people set out to start solving those problems.
If an idea is floated and the problems get solved relatively easily then that idea -even if it was originally just a kite - can end up a reality.
We’ve just done it.
It isn’t feasible.0 -
They absolutely will not. The Republican party is still outraged that people directly involved with Nixon and with the Iran-Contra affair were prosecuted and/or refused seats on the Supreme Court or had negative press written about them.Mexicanpete said:
There is going to be a point, probably in the not to distant future when Bill Barr and Mitch McConnell look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves how the hell did we allow this insanity to get so far out of hand.Alistair said:Predixtion: in approx 10 years Republicans in America will be having fainting fits that William Barr is not being confirmed to the Supreme Court.
They think they are doing everything perfectly and will continue to do so until the day they die.0 -
Why are we discussing a bridge that will never be built rather than the global pandemic that is about to change globalisation forever and kill many millions of people in the process?0
-
I can't fault Theresa May.Cyclefree said:
Why, in the name of all that is holy, would any sentient being pay to listen to Mrs May?rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1227654257400303618
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
She clearly had a shit time being PM, and has precisely zero legacy.
Why wouldn't you try and make a bit of cash out of it?0 -
Road tolls based on existing transport volumes with no change in volumes.Luckyguy1983 said:
No you haven't. You've neatly and elegantly calculated that the road tolls won't repay the investment. I bow to no-one in my respect for your experience and abilities but that isn't a full feasibility study.Casino_Royale said:
You don’t need a feasibility study.Luckyguy1983 said:
Totally agree. And it's right to study the feasibility - although I am puzzled why we're discussing it now, since the study has not reported and nor has it just been commissioned. Every new idea needs space to germinate and survive being a seedling - it is too easy to stamp on them at the earliest stage. I think Boris understands this and does not mind a bunch of non starters as long as one or two are amazing.Philip_Thompson said:Leaders of all sorts float ideas. The last three Presidents of the United States (at least the last 3, maybe more) have announced that NASA will be sending manned missions to Mars. Based on earlier announcements that should be happening soon, but its always something decades off that gets forgotten about until it gets announced as a great new idea by the next President.
Part of the reason is that talk is cheap I agree. But the second reason I'd give is more nobel than Mr Meeks cynical suggestion - by floating different ideas people talk about them yes but then you can see the ideas that do take off, and when problems get discussed some people set out to start solving those problems.
If an idea is floated and the problems get solved relatively easily then that idea -even if it was originally just a kite - can end up a reality.
We’ve just done it.
It isn’t feasible.
If roads and bridges were only ever built if they were self-funded from tolls there wouldn't be many roads etc built.0 -
Can I ask what involvement you have in business / logistics /import and export etc? I am fine with the "vigour of capitalism" but vast amounts of added red tape costs money and delayed transit costs money and disrupted supply chains cost money and all 3 are now government policy.eadric said:
I entirely disagree. I reckon the natural vigour of capitalism will overcome all this trivial shit, and both sides will - in the end - find a begrudging but common cause.RochdalePioneers said:
I voted leave, did a Mea Culpa when I realised they were serious about leaving the EEA and became a #remainernow. Brexit isn't going to turn out ok if the Tories are serious about imposing border checks on everything in January. Business who imports and exports- like most business - needs to know what 2021 looks like. And "deal with it" doesn't cut the mustard when Govey says it'll be 2025 before we get back to border process as simple as we have now.eadric said:
It's certainly not the apocalypse. What can possibly explain the below-Brexit performances of France, Germany and Italy???EPG said:
3rd out of 7 is, well, it's above average!eadric said:So Britain had the 3rd fastest growing economy in the G7 in 2019
LOL@Remainers
Brexit???
Also, what ARE Remainers going to do if Brexit turns out OK, indeed pretty good, considering (which I expect). The levels of cognitive dissonance might be actively fatal. We may look upon Jolyon Maugham, in a tiny kimono, hammering a Boxing Day fox to death, as a time of relative Remoaner sanity.
And because Britain will be less encumbered with bureaucracy, and able to elect and eject all those who make our laws, we will do better.
It's that simple.
When you say "less encumbered with bureaucracy" perhaps you can assist. Right now my company buys stuff with zero checks and zero paperwork. And then sells it with zero checks and zero paperwork. In January there will be lots of checks and paperwork for bits coming in and finished goods going out. I need to be proposing prices for products in the next month for next year and nobody has a clue what the cost will be of the mass of extra bureaucracy.
Perhaps you can advise the British Retail Consortium on their specific detailed real world list of questions that no-one other than you can answer.0 -
A feasibility study will go into more detail on the business case and economics, and will lay out the engineering and technical challenges which will make an interesting read.Luckyguy1983 said:
No you haven't. You've neatly and elegantly calculated that the road tolls won't repay the investment. I bow to no-one in my respect for your experience and abilities but that isn't a full feasibility study.Casino_Royale said:
You don’t need a feasibility study.Luckyguy1983 said:
Totally agree. And it's right to study the feasibility - although I am puzzled why we're discussing it now, since the study has not reported and nor has it just been commissioned. Every new idea needs space to germinate and survive being a seedling - it is too easy to stamp on them at the earliest stage. I think Boris understands this and does not mind a bunch of non starters as long as one or two are amazing.Philip_Thompson said:Leaders of all sorts float ideas. The last three Presidents of the United States (at least the last 3, maybe more) have announced that NASA will be sending manned missions to Mars. Based on earlier announcements that should be happening soon, but its always something decades off that gets forgotten about until it gets announced as a great new idea by the next President.
Part of the reason is that talk is cheap I agree. But the second reason I'd give is more nobel than Mr Meeks cynical suggestion - by floating different ideas people talk about them yes but then you can see the ideas that do take off, and when problems get discussed some people set out to start solving those problems.
If an idea is floated and the problems get solved relatively easily then that idea -even if it was originally just a kite - can end up a reality.
We’ve just done it.
It isn’t feasible.
The conclusions won't be any different from the back of a fag packet though.
If it goes ahead it will be entirely political and will need heavy subsidy from the public purse.0 -
It was a calculation that the current traffic levels would not pay for a bridge. But then, the current traffic levels wouldn't justify *any* transport link anywhere. The reason for build such things is, usually, to *increase* capacity in the hope/belief that traffic will increase to consume said capacity.Luckyguy1983 said:
No you haven't. You've neatly and elegantly calculated that the road tolls won't repay the investment. I bow to no-one in my respect for your experience and abilities but that isn't a full feasibility study.Casino_Royale said:
You don’t need a feasibility study.Luckyguy1983 said:
Totally agree. And it's right to study the feasibility - although I am puzzled why we're discussing it now, since the study has not reported and nor has it just been commissioned. Every new idea needs space to germinate and survive being a seedling - it is too easy to stamp on them at the earliest stage. I think Boris understands this and does not mind a bunch of non starters as long as one or two are amazing.Philip_Thompson said:Leaders of all sorts float ideas. The last three Presidents of the United States (at least the last 3, maybe more) have announced that NASA will be sending manned missions to Mars. Based on earlier announcements that should be happening soon, but its always something decades off that gets forgotten about until it gets announced as a great new idea by the next President.
Part of the reason is that talk is cheap I agree. But the second reason I'd give is more nobel than Mr Meeks cynical suggestion - by floating different ideas people talk about them yes but then you can see the ideas that do take off, and when problems get discussed some people set out to start solving those problems.
If an idea is floated and the problems get solved relatively easily then that idea -even if it was originally just a kite - can end up a reality.
We’ve just done it.
It isn’t feasible.2 -
As I pointed out above ALL of the UK GDP increase in 2019 is due to increases in public spending and to a smaller extent households spending money they don't have. The productive part of the economy went backwards last year.eadric said:So Britain had the 3rd fastest growing economy in the G7 in 2019
LOL@Remainers
Which raises the question why we didn't vote Corbyn. GDP would increase even faster.0 -
If Boris / Dominic were serious about a link between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, instead of a bridge it would be a tunnel from Red Bay to Southend, Kintyre, a motorway to Claonaig, a tunnel to Lochranza, another motorway across the Cock of Arran, another tunnel to north Bute, more motorway across Bute, a further tunnel to Cumbrae, continuing the motorway to the final tunnel to Hunterston, to join the motorway from Hunterston to the M74 south of Larkhall. Cheaper and safer than the Boris Bridge. However, if the bridge were built, it would be an ideal site for July 12th marches for HYFUD and his friends, so that normal folk in Belfast and Glasgow could get on with their lives and be able to cross the road.0
-
Whatever Theresa's pulling power as a speaker, isn't it also a sort of reward for services rendered whilst in office? Serving PM provides business with several million pounds worth of contracts. There is no bribery and corruption, but an unspoken expectation that at some point pleasant things could happen. It's very British.TheScreamingEagles said:As someone who has occasionally hired politicians (and others) to give speeches at work one of the reasons you do it, regardless of the speaker, is that big name brings in people in your industry/clients/suppliers you don't normally get to see regularly, if at all.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
They act as a glorious networking event.0 -
I estimated the flows at full capacity 100% of the time all year round.Malmesbury said:
1) You left out the critical part of any analysis for a new transport link - not just the current traffic level, but any analysis of how traffic levels might change with extra capacity.TheScreamingEagles said:
Fake news, I haven't costed this project.Malmesbury said:Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.
Imagine an analysis of HS2 that said - we take the existing traffic level and assume that HS2 will carry the same.
2) Non direct benefits not considered. When looking at transport links, the knock on effects must be considered.
That isn't realistic even by itself.
Then, I doubled all the traffic just for good measure.
It still comes nowhere close to paying even half of its way.
You don't have to do Uber micro analysis when the conclusions are that stark.0 -
To be honest, if she actually opened up (no, I'm not holding my breath either) I'd actually be quite interested in what Theresa May had to say.TheScreamingEagles said:As someone who has occasionally hired politicians (and others) to give speeches at work one of the reasons you do it, regardless of the speaker, is that big name brings in people in your industry/clients/suppliers you don't normally get to see regularly, if at all.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
They act as a glorious networking event.0 -
I agree. We can only speculate about the good that the removal of a whole layer of patronage, often working counter to Britain's interests, will do.eadric said:
I entirely disagree. I reckon the natural vigour of capitalism will overcome all this trivial shit, and both sides will - in the end - find a begrudging but common cause.RochdalePioneers said:
I voted leave, did a Mea Culpa when I realised they were serious about leaving the EEA and became a #remainernow. Brexit isn't going to turn out ok if the Tories are serious about imposing border checks on everything in January. Business who imports and exports- like most business - needs to know what 2021 looks like. And "deal with it" doesn't cut the mustard when Govey says it'll be 2025 before we get back to border process as simple as we have now.eadric said:
It's certainly not the apocalypse. What can possibly explain the below-Brexit performances of France, Germany and Italy???EPG said:
3rd out of 7 is, well, it's above average!eadric said:So Britain had the 3rd fastest growing economy in the G7 in 2019
LOL@Remainers
Brexit???
Also, what ARE Remainers going to do if Brexit turns out OK, indeed pretty good, considering (which I expect). The levels of cognitive dissonance might be actively fatal. We may look upon Jolyon Maugham, in a tiny kimono, hammering a Boxing Day fox to death, as a time of relative Remoaner sanity.
And because Britain will be less encumbered with bureaucracy, and able to elect and eject all those who make our laws, we will do better.
It's that simple.0 -
Any rational analysis of such a project would have to take into account potential traffic increases and secondary effects.Casino_Royale said:
I estimated the flows at full capacity 100% of the time all year round.Malmesbury said:
1) You left out the critical part of any analysis for a new transport link - not just the current traffic level, but any analysis of how traffic levels might change with extra capacity.TheScreamingEagles said:
Fake news, I haven't costed this project.Malmesbury said:Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.
Imagine an analysis of HS2 that said - we take the existing traffic level and assume that HS2 will carry the same.
2) Non direct benefits not considered. When looking at transport links, the knock on effects must be considered.
That isn't realistic even by itself.
Then, I doubled all the traffic just for good measure.
It still comes nowhere close to paying even half of its way.
You don't have to do Uber micro analysis when the conclusions are that stark.
IIRC HS2, in terms of tickets that could be sold to 100% of it's capacity does not payback. It is the secondary effects that have been calculated to give its level of return.0 -
Fab. You buy and sell stuff. So not in manufacturing at all. And half a million is a drop in the ocean compared to the manufacturing industries providing very detailed commentary on exactly where your lack of knowledge may be wrong.eadric said:
I'm a sole trader and in the last tax year I turned over half a million pounds, mainly from the EU, so, yeah, I know what I am talking about.RochdalePioneers said:
Can I ask what involvement you have in business / logistics /import and export etc? I am fine with the "vigour of capitalism" but vast amounts of added red tape costs money and delayed transit costs money and disrupted supply chains cost money and all 3 are now government policy.
When you say "less encumbered with bureaucracy" perhaps you can assist. Right now my company buys stuff with zero checks and zero paperwork. And then sells it with zero checks and zero paperwork. In January there will be lots of checks and paperwork for bits coming in and finished goods going out. I need to be proposing prices for products in the next month for next year and nobody has a clue what the cost will be of the mass of extra bureaucracy.
Perhaps you can advise the British Retail Consortium on their specific detailed real world list of questions that no-one other than you can answer.
No checks now, no paperwork now, no bureaucracy now. Vs lots of all of them in January with unspecified £costs. Fun times.
0 -
Because he's a Wazzock.FF43 said:
As I pointed out above ALL of the UK GDP increase in 2019 is due to increases in public spending and to a smaller extent households spending money they don't have. The productive part of the economy went backwards last year.eadric said:So Britain had the 3rd fastest growing economy in the G7 in 2019
LOL@Remainers
Which raises the question why we didn't vote Corbyn. GDP would increase even faster.0 -
As a PM, not the most inspiring of speakers. However, speaking as a cynic, almost certainly better than the majority of “motivational” speakers I have been subjected toCasino_Royale said:
To be honest, if she actually opened up (no, I'm not holding my breath either) I'd actually be quite interested in what Theresa May had to say.TheScreamingEagles said:As someone who has occasionally hired politicians (and others) to give speeches at work one of the reasons you do it, regardless of the speaker, is that big name brings in people in your industry/clients/suppliers you don't normally get to see regularly, if at all.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
They act as a glorious networking event.0 -
Yes, it was a very serious suggestion, nearly as serious as radioactive fruits de mer.Malmesbury said:Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.0 -
The bridge would have a tremendous symbolic value - as the final and possibly most ruinous bribe paid to Scotland and Northern Ireland with English taxpayers' money. Finally completed, no doubt, about five minutes before they both vote to sod off.eadric said:
Did anyone "cost" the Taj Mahal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Fake news, I haven't costed this project.Malmesbury said:Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.
I doubt it would have come in as "value for money"
There's a serious point here. Some projects have a symbolic, emotional or aesthetic value which far outweighs their actual cost, over time.0 -
The bridge is a completely fucking stupid idea. I could just about get on board with a tunnel from Anglesey to Dublin which makes a lot more sense. But that wouldn't achieve whatever Boris wants to on linking NI with the mainland.0
-
I have that in mind for an article.GideonWise said:Why are we discussing a bridge that will never be built rather than the global pandemic that is about to change globalisation forever and kill many millions of people in the process?
0 -
That's a rather niche product to turnover £500,000 a year with...eadric said:
I personally manufacture stuff and sell it to the EU, all by myself. And in the tax year last audited, I turned over half a mill. So, go and shove an artisanal hand carved Yorkshire dildo up yer fecking arseRochdalePioneers said:
Fab. You buy and sell stuff. So not in manufacturing at all. And half a million is a drop in the ocean compared to the manufacturing industries providing very detailed commentary on exactly where your lack of knowledge may be wrong.eadric said:
I'm a sole trader and in the last tax year I turned over half a million pounds, mainly from the EU, so, yeah, I know what I am talking about.RochdalePioneers said:
Can I ask what involvement you have in business / logistics /import and export etc? I am fine with the "vigour of capitalism" but vast amounts of added red tape costs money and delayed transit costs money and disrupted supply chains cost money and all 3 are now government policy.
When you say "less encumbered with bureaucracy" perhaps you can assist. Right now my company buys stuff with zero checks and zero paperwork. And then sells it with zero checks and zero paperwork. In January there will be lots of checks and paperwork for bits coming in and finished goods going out. I need to be proposing prices for products in the next month for next year and nobody has a clue what the cost will be of the mass of extra bureaucracy.
Perhaps you can advise the British Retail Consortium on their specific detailed real world list of questions that no-one other than you can answer.
No checks now, no paperwork now, no bureaucracy now. Vs lots of all of them in January with unspecified £costs. Fun times.2 -
That's nonsense. I've explained there's no way a secondary effect (which would be by definition less than the primary) would make up the difference. And I've also explained how a doubling of traffic wouldn't do it either. Neither would both combined.Malmesbury said:
Any rational analysis of such a project would have to take into account potential traffic increases and secondary effects.Casino_Royale said:
I estimated the flows at full capacity 100% of the time all year round.Malmesbury said:
1) You left out the critical part of any analysis for a new transport link - not just the current traffic level, but any analysis of how traffic levels might change with extra capacity.TheScreamingEagles said:
Fake news, I haven't costed this project.Malmesbury said:Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.
Imagine an analysis of HS2 that said - we take the existing traffic level and assume that HS2 will carry the same.
2) Non direct benefits not considered. When looking at transport links, the knock on effects must be considered.
That isn't realistic even by itself.
Then, I doubled all the traffic just for good measure.
It still comes nowhere close to paying even half of its way.
You don't have to do Uber micro analysis when the conclusions are that stark.
IIRC HS2, in terms of tickets that could be sold to 100% of it's capacity does not payback. It is the secondary effects that have been calculated to give its level of return.
You like this project, and don't like the business case conclusion.
You don't like HS2, and don't like its business case conclusion.
It really is as simple as that.0 -
To quote Dr Evil, "riiiiiight"eadric said:
I personally manufacture stuff and sell it to the EU, all by myself. And in the tax year last audited, I turned over half a mill. So, go and shove an artisanal hand carved Yorkshire dildo up yer fecking arseRochdalePioneers said:
Fab. You buy and sell stuff. So not in manufacturing at all. And half a million is a drop in the ocean compared to the manufacturing industries providing very detailed commentary on exactly where your lack of knowledge may be wrong.eadric said:
I'm a sole trader and in the last tax year I turned over half a million pounds, mainly from the EU, so, yeah, I know what I am talking about.RochdalePioneers said:
Can I ask what involvement you have in business / logistics /import and export etc? I am fine with the "vigour of capitalism" but vast amounts of added red tape costs money and delayed transit costs money and disrupted supply chains cost money and all 3 are now government policy.
When you say "less encumbered with bureaucracy" perhaps you can assist. Right now my company buys stuff with zero checks and zero paperwork. And then sells it with zero checks and zero paperwork. In January there will be lots of checks and paperwork for bits coming in and finished goods going out. I need to be proposing prices for products in the next month for next year and nobody has a clue what the cost will be of the mass of extra bureaucracy.
Perhaps you can advise the British Retail Consortium on their specific detailed real world list of questions that no-one other than you can answer.
No checks now, no paperwork now, no bureaucracy now. Vs lots of all of them in January with unspecified £costs. Fun times.
You should go run the car industry. The chemicals industry. Pharmaceuticals. Food. Logistics. You know so much more than they all do.0
